[TomW16]

TomW

um ... neutral? How do you know?

jules

Neutral is judged by ear of course  .

[Steve Eddy]

I figure that I can jump in here and provide my two cents.

Good job, boys! We got one! Fire at will!

 

se

[Steve Eddy]

For years and years, you could go into any really well known top dollar recording studio with million dollar gear and see sitting right there on the meter bridge of their mega-buck mixing console, one lonely little piss ass Auratone speaker(yes, I said speaker, not speakers). A cheap little full range speaker. They would mix on the big monitors, but still reference to the Auratone in mono. And yes, it had some bearing on the final mix for a lot of recordings you and I enjoy on our mega peeked and tweeked 2 channel systems.

Yes, it becomes paradoxical, and in the end, what's important is what sounds good to your ears.

Or rather your brain.

If it makes you warm and fuzzy, then it's all good, y'know?

Works for me.

Now pass the bong around and let's all get warm and fuzzy together!

se

[miklorsmith]

I'm beat.  Sounds good.

[Daygloworange]

Yeah, me too. Anybody know what time it is? Boy I sure wish I had a clock or something....

 

Cheers 

[TomW16]

So any subjectivists gonna buy the clock?  

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Take care,
Tom

[rajacat]

Is it a Big Ben?

[Dan Banquer]

For years and years, you could go into any really well known top dollar recording studio with million dollar gear and see sitting right there on the meter bridge of their mega-buck mixing console, one lonely little piss ass Auratone speaker(yes, I said speaker, not speakers). A cheap little full range speaker. They would mix on the big monitors, but still reference to the Auratone in mono. And yes, it had some bearing on the final mix for a lot of recordings you and I enjoy on our mega peeked and tweeked 2 channel systems.

Yes, it becomes paradoxical, and in the end, what's important is what sounds good to your ears. If it makes you warm and fuzzy, then it's all good, y'know?

Cheers

The reason that they have that cheap little speaker there is they want to get an idea how their recording will sound on a car audio system or boombox. Seems pretty practical to me.
               d.b.

[Steve Eddy]

Neutral is judged by ear of course  .

*sigh* I really do have too much time on my hands. 

se

[Ethan Winer]

Not to pry but what components do you use in your personal reference system?

Not prying at all. I'd be surprised if nobody asked!

I have two systems. One is my large (34 by 18 by ~10) one-room home recording studio, and the other is my medium size (25 by 15 by ~9.5) living home theater. I say "~" (about) because both rooms have a peaked ceiling so this is the average.

My home studio has a pair of very large JBL 4430 pro monitors, bi-amped. (Real bi-amp, not bi-wired!) They're powered by a pair of pro quality Crown PowerBase amps totalling just over 1 KW with a Rane active crossover. I use a small Mackie 1202 mixer to control / route the sound from my computer where I do all the audio work. I also have a pair of Yamaha NS-10 speakers, which many pro engineers swear by, but I think they stink and I rarely use them.

My HT is totally different, with a mix of budget consumer gear and very good pro-level speakers. The speakers are Mackie HR624s, with a huge SVS dual-12 subwoofer. The Mackie speakers are self-powered and biamped, so my cheap Pioneer receiver doesn't need to work very hard. The receiver is more for routing and decoding Dolby and DTS, and switching the video between cable and DVD.

Both rooms are treated very well with many bass traps plus absorption at all the early reflection points. This is the key to excellent sound. Many of my friends are professional musicians and recording engineers, and they all agree my rooms are the best they're heard, aside from a million dollar recording studio. Everyone buys or rents CDs and then brings them to my house to watch. Though maybe my popcorn machine is a factor too.

What I am arguing is that what matters to me is my own pleasure and enjoyment. And if I ultimately derive more pleasure and enjoyment from that which is less "high fidelity," that's what I'll choose every time.

Sure, and I already agreed with that. No contest! Everyone has personal preferences, and nobody else can say they're wrong.

> I think the notion that the distortion characteristics of a low feedback SET amp can be exactly replicated with a couple of diodes and resistors is hogwash. <

On what do you base that?

If I can't exactly emulate every possible type of tube distortion with two diodes and two resistors, I'm sure I can come close enough to not matter. And give me a pair of 50 cent op-amps and I promise you I'll nail it!

> why do you seem to have such a dim view of what you refer to as "boutique products"? It's almost as if you're implying that there's something inherently bad or wrong with them. <

Great question! My objections are two-fold:

1) They are not worth the money asked, and they are sold under fraudulent pretenses. You can get perfectly wonderful gear for 1/20th the cost of the really expensive stuff.

2) A lot of boutique gear really is crap. You will never find a professional recording studio using a power amp with 10 percent distortion, or loudspeakers that have substantial resonance built-in intentionally. Likewise, some of the most expensive speaker wires you can buy have unacceptably high capacitance. The capacitance can be so high that some (lame boutique) power amps will oscillate at ultrasonic frequencies which then blows out the tweeters.

> the only way you can truly hear the intentions of the recording and mixing engineers is if you were to use the same source components, playback gear, loudspeakers, and acoustical environment that was used to produce the recording. <

Agreed 100 percent, which is why I always aim for maximum transparency rather than an intentionally colored sound. Pros use transparent gear, so if you do the same you'll at least get as close as your listening room allows for.

--Ethan

[Daygloworange]

The reason that they have that cheap little speaker there is they want to get an idea how their recording will sound on a car audio system or boombox. Seems pretty practical to me.
               d.b.

Actually, it had more to do with mono TV speakers, and AM Radio, but yes to some degree applicable to car stereo's and boom boxes.

Cheers

[Steve Eddy]

Sure, and I already agreed with that. No contest! Everyone has personal preferences, and nobody else can say they're wrong.

Ok.

On what do you base that?

On my understanding of the distortion characteristics of low feedback SET amps and those of silicon diodes. But as I said, I'm quite prepared to be wrong.

If I can't exactly emulate every possible type of tube distortion with two diodes and two resistors, I'm sure I can come close enough to not matter. And give me a pair of 50 cent op-amps and I promise you I'll nail it!

Ok. I'll mail you a pair of 50 cent opamps to the address on your website Monday.

Great question! My objections are two-fold:

1) They are not worth the money asked...

Perhaps not to you. But "worth" is quite a subjective valuation which isn't necessarily the same for everyone.

...and they are sold under fraudulent pretenses.

Really? All of them? That's quite a broad accusation you're making there. What exactly are the fraudulent pretenses you're speaking of here?

You can get perfectly wonderful gear for 1/20th the cost of the really expensive stuff.

Like "worth," "wonderful" is also quite a subjective valuation. Again, not everyone's a strict utilitarian.

2) A lot of boutique gear really is crap.

Crap in what respect?

You will never find a professional recording studio using a power amp with 10 percent distortion, or loudspeakers that have substantial resonance built-in intentionally.

So? We're not talking about professional recording studios. We're talking about regular folks sitting in their homes enjoying reproduced music.

Likewise, some of the most expensive speaker wires you can buy have unacceptably high capacitance. The capacitance can be so high that some (lame boutique) power amps will oscillate at ultrasonic frequencies which then blows out the tweeters.

Yeah, there are a couple of speaker cables out there that have caused such problems, but that hardly describes "boutique products" as a whole.

Agreed 100 percent, which is why I always aim for maximum transparency rather than an intentionally colored sound. Pros use transparent gear, so if you do the same you'll at least get as close as your listening room allows for.

No, you can only get as close as the equipment used to make the recording is to the equipment used to play it back. Unless you're arguing that the equipment used to record Sgt. Pepper, or Elvis' SUN sessions was as transparent as the most transparent equipment available today.

se

[Dan Banquer]

How about you Dan, what is your reference system? All pro audio I assume!

Raj

Well it seems that I can't find my set up listed on this site, so I think it will be sufficient to say that most of the equipment comes from a small audio company called R.E. Designs. The speakers are Fried G3A's.
                   d.b.

[Gordy]

Rajacat, do a search here for R.E. Designs, I believe Mgalusha wrote a review on his R.E.D. amp a while back!

[Ethan Winer]

Steve,

> Ok. I'll mail you a pair of 50 cent opamps to the address on your website Monday. <

LOL, don't bother, I already have plenty of op-amps.

> "worth" is quite a subjective valuation which isn't necessarily the same for everyone. <

That's a good point, and perhaps I could have been clearer. I am not opposed to high quality gear! I even have some myself. And I would be silly to put a dollar amount on how much people "should" not pay more than.

> Really? All of them? That's quite a broad accusation you're making there. What exactly are the fraudulent pretenses you're speaking of here? <

I consider claims to be fraudulent when they can be easily shown as untrue using standard scientific practices. The Clever Little Clock certainly qualifies, as does an LP demagnetizer, or the typical claims made by makers of replacement power cords. They claim their products improve the sound quality, but never actually offer proof. I said I won't put a price limit on what people should pay, but as a guideline you can buy a perfectly wonderful professional quality power amplifier for under $2,000, so paying five or more times that for a "boutique" amp having similar (or worse) power capability and other specs seems a poor purchase decision.

> Crap in what respect? <

High distortion, poor frequency response, tendency to self-oscillate, all of which I've seen in very expensive products. And for power amps, I've seen models that blow up if run without a loudspeaker connected. I once saw a $17,000 power amp blow up because it had no input connected!

> We're not talking about professional recording studios. We're talking about regular folks sitting in their homes enjoying reproduced music. <

Sure. But even regular folks like to get their money's worth. If a product claims to be very high quality as a way to justify an equally high price tag, should it not be high quality?

> you can only get as close as the equipment used to make the recording is to the equipment used to play it back. <

True but irrelevant. If Sgt. Peppers has unwanted distortion and rolled off highs, which it does, why make that even worse by using poor playback equipment?

--Ethan

[Steve Eddy]

LOL, don't bother, I already have plenty of op-amps.

Well, you did say to give you a pair of 50 cent opamps. 

So how soon can you have the results?

That's a good point, and perhaps I could have been clearer. I am not opposed to high quality gear! I even have some myself. And I would be silly to put a dollar amount on how much people "should" not pay more than.

Ok.

I consider claims to be fraudulent when they can be easily shown as untrue using standard scientific practices. The Clever Little Clock certainly qualifies, as does an LP demagnetizer, or the typical claims made by makers of replacement power cords. They claim their products improve the sound quality, but never actually offer proof.

Sure, there are plenty of unsubstantiated claims out there. But I don't think boutique products should be painted with such a broad brush. Why not just address those making such claims instead of lumping them all under the umbrella of "boutique products"?

I said I won't put a price limit on what people should pay, but as a guideline you can buy a perfectly wonderful professional quality power amplifier for under $2,000, so paying five or more times that for a "boutique" amp having similar (or worse) power capability and other specs seems a poor purchase decision.

But of course all of that depends on what's going into that decision. As I've said before, not everyone is a strict utilitarian.

High distortion, poor frequency response, tendency to self-oscillate, all of which I've seen in very expensive products. And for power amps, I've seen models that blow up if run without a loudspeaker connected. I once saw a $17,000 power amp blow up because it had no input connected!

And there are plenty of boutique products out there which don't fit this description.

Sure. But even regular folks like to get their money's worth. If a product claims to be very high quality as a way to justify an equally high price tag, should it not be high quality?

I guess that depends on how one gauges quality. If the product sounds better to them, is that not higher quality to them? Is quality to simply be distilled to a set of numbers?

True but irrelevant. If Sgt. Peppers has unwanted distortion and rolled off highs, which it does, why make that even worse by using poor playback equipment?

I think you miss my point.

Are you effectively saying that Martin simply plunked down some microphones, set levels, and punched the record button? That the limitations of the equipment he had available at the time played no role at all in how the recording was actually done? If so, then you would have a point, but one which I would disagree with (I'd made my argument for this when I talked of what the recording itself represents).

se

[Steve Eddy]

By the way, before you get started on the low feedback SET amp emulator using the opamps, diodes and resistors, here are some basic minimum requirements with regard to distortion characteristics your circuit will need to replicate:

At low frequencies, there needs to be a good amount of both even and odd ordered harmonics, odd ordered dominant and extending to fairly high orders (let's just say 10th and 11th).

As frequency increases, overall distortion should diminish a bit, but odd and high order harmonics should diminish quite significantly, leaving second order dominant and not much beyond the 6th by the time you reach 1kHz.

Distortion must always increase (roughly linearly) from the lowest signal levels upward.

When it clips, it must only clip one half of the waveform, and do that rather softly.

se

[Ethan Winer]

Steve,

> So how soon can you have the results? <

If you're willing to come to my place in CT with a power amp in hand to emulate, then we'll talk. Otherwise, what do you envision as happening with a circuit I'd build? Who would try it and say if it sounds the same as your amp?

> I don't think boutique products should be painted with such a broad brush. Why not just address those making such claims instead of lumping them all under the umbrella of "boutique products"? ... not everyone is a strict utilitarian <

Agreed 100 percent. Again, my objection is when products are promoted fraudulently, where the very high prices are justified by nonsense and pseudo-science intended to trick the uneducated. So while I put everything Shunyata makes in that category, I don't do so for an $80,000 car. And, not unrelated, while I personally would never spend a lot of money on diamonds and gold and other jewelry, I see no harm in that when someone can afford it. Most people understand that jewelry has no inherent value or worth. (Okay, most men...)

> And there are plenty of boutique products out there which don't fit this description. <

I'm sure there are. In that case they're just overpriced but not incompetent too.

> If the product sounds better to them, is that not higher quality to them? <

But it really isn't higher quality. Rather, it's the placebo effect at work. Or comb filtering. Nobody can hear the difference between 0.001 and 0.002 percent distortion. Or between a circuit that's down 0.1 dB at 20 KHz versus another down 0.2 dB there. So in this case even if "quality" can be shown to be higher, it's irrelevant.

> Is quality to simply be distilled to a set of numbers? <

Yes, I think so. I mean, what else do you think there is?!

> Are you effectively saying that Martin simply plunked down some microphones, set levels, and punched the record button? That the limitations of the equipment he had available at the time played no role at all in how the recording was actually done? If so, then you would have a point, but one which I would disagree with (I'd made my argument for this when I talked of what the recording itself represents). <

Still not sure what you're getting at. I'm sure GM did more than "plunk down" some microphones. (Actually Geoff Emerick was the engineer.)

I recently saw a funny quote from Fletcher, one of the more colorful characters in the pro audio forums. Some newbie was asking about toob gear, and Fletcher pointed out that back in the 1960s engineers tried very hard to get away from a "tube" sound. The goal then (as now) was to capture a performance as clearly and cleanly as possible! Over the years since, old audio equipment and technology has become glamorized and even romanticized.

--Ethan

[miklorsmith]

I recently saw a funny quote from Fletcher, one of the more colorful characters in the pro audio forums. Some newbie was asking about toob gear, and Fletcher pointed out that back in the 1960s engineers tried very hard to get away from a "tube" sound. The goal then (as now) was to capture a performance as clearly and cleanly as possible! Over the years since, old audio equipment and technology has become glamorized and even romanticized.

Amen, brother!

And, just as the digital sound's "perfect sound forever" claim, the starry eyes of the engineers saw promise without really understanding what that meant, underestimating the emotional brain's connection to our hobby.  While lots of folks really dig that clinical sound, many others don't.  The real glory is the marketplace has made room for both groups.

[John Casler]

> Is quality to simply be distilled to a set of numbers? <

Yes, I think so. I mean, what else do you think there is?!

And this is likely the difference between an Objectivist, and a Subjectivist.

Hearing certain qualities of something is what else there is.